If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I can name religions that encouraged the use of logic, reason, and conscious (Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism before that).

As universal salvation (a tenent of some religions) argued that salvation was already attained the "bribery" to do good was gone and doing good was done for its own sake.

Has religion been used for evil purposes? Sure it has. So have swords and guns. So has government. That does not make the instrument evil. Even if you could argue successfully that some religions were evil I do not think you could make the argument that it applied to all.

arguably you are correct, for instance you can be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time. Buddhism does not require one to believe in a deity.

while i think the eastern religions and paganism are silly if they include the super-natural, they are not inherently evil either as long as they do not force authority on man. they do not conflict with reason in there pursuit of truth.

in fact there it is. i believe any religion that conflicts with empiricism and rationalism in its pursuit of truth, is inherently evil. this means that any western religion, and some eastern religions, and the only ones that don't fall under that umbrella, its hard to make a serious case for them being 1. relevant to the discussion at hand and 2. religions at all. so with that we can then circle back around to "all religions* are evil"

and again, to the greater point: you still can't be free if you believe in an authority greater then man.

arguably you are correct, for instance you can be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time. Buddhism does not require one to believe in a deity.

while i think the eastern religions and paganism are silly if they include the super-natural, they are not inherently evil either as long as they do not force authority on man. they do not conflict with reason in there pursuit of truth.

in fact there it is. i believe any religion that conflicts with empiricism and rationalism in its pursuit of truth, is inherently evil. this means that any western religion, and some eastern religions, and the only ones that don't fall under that umbrella, its hard to make a serious case for them being 1. relevant to the discussion at hand and 2. religions at all. so with that we can then circle back around to "all religions* are evil"

and again, to the greater point: you still can't be free if you believe in an authority greater then man.

So anything that restricts freedom is evil? I thought we just got done with the discussion and concluded that it was not the authority that made it evil.

Universal salvation is a Christan doctrine dating back at least to the German Dunkers

There are people in every "religion" and organization who try to manipulate others to benifit themselves in some way. There are also people involved who are not trying to help themeselves but are trying to help others and by doing so are pleasing their maker.
To Believe or not believe in a higher power is your choice and this is the basis of "Faith".
Some people will only know the truth in the very end. Many people are hyped up and scared about the end of days. Some people are preparing to survive the end of days. Some people have already prepared themselves for the end by the way they have lived up until that point.
I believe this is why some people are worried and some are not. As for me... I AINT Skeered.

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

I think you would find that atheists would be equally offended at Islamic symbols being present at publicly funded facilities as well. I have yet to hear of a case where any such thing has occurred here in the U.S. , so it is sort of a moot argument. And atheists are not about stopping Christians, they are simply asking that they not be subjected to religous symbolism in publicly funded places such as courthouses, schools, etc. I dont see how this is an arguable issue? Now if an atheist were filing a lawsuit against a local church for say a 40foot statue of Jesus in front of their church, I would find that absurd as it is on church property. A statehouse or courthouse is not church property and should not be subject to having these types of biased religious artilcles present for a society that pays for it and may or may not be of that religion. How you would feel as a tax payer to have your tax dollars spent on a big statue of Buddha in the middle of your local courthouse is probably akin to how an atheist feels about the ten commandments being displayed in that same courthouse.

And while I do find the Coexist bumper stickers somewhat laughable since it is typically in a religions favor to try and convert other religions to their beliefs, it is directed at EVERYONE. It isnt directed at only Christians, It is directed at all religions to attempt to coexist with all other religions. Think about how much less fighting there would be in the world if we all just stopped killing our fellow man in the name of God. And before you argue it, Christians have killed just as many if not more Muslims throughout history than the other way around. Heck, in the last century, "Christians" killed 6+ million Jews. How tolerant is that?

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify. but the core belief of all western religions is that we are subject to an authority, god. whether we want to be or not, because he created us, he has authority over us.

this is the exact opposite of the foundation of democracy, where we consent to be governed. locke's natural man, a man who was not created by god, and thus is TOTALLY free. subject to only the authorities he gives consent to.

these two ideas cannot co-exist.

Are you arguing that anything that interferes with John Lockes principles of natural rights (life, liberty and property) is evil?

I am having a hard time grasping how your conclusion "all religion is evil at its core" is supported by your premises. When I asked you why you went off about authoratarianism. I asked you if authoratarianism was evil. You stated no and then went on to talk about Locke's natural man. So now I am asking if interferring with the natural rights was evil. You state no.

So I am lost. You have not presented one premise that supports your conclusion. Effectively you are saying the answer is 4 and then supplying the formula 3+5.

If you believe authoratarianism is not evil and you believe interference with Locke's natural rights is not evil you have presented zero explanation for your conclusion that all religion is evil.

I am having a hard time grasping how your conclusion "all religion is evil at its core" is supported by your premises. When I asked you why you went off about authoratarianism. I asked you if authoratarianism was evil. You stated no and then went on to talk about Locke's natural man. So now I am asking if interferring with the natural rights was evil. You state no.

So I am lost. You have not presented one premise that supports your conclusion. Effectively you are saying the answer is 4 and then supplying the formula 3+5.

If you believe authoratarianism is not evil and you believe interference with Locke's natural rights is not evil you have presented zero explanation for your conclusion that all religion is evil.

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. the sticky wicket is you seem to think that my point about freedom, and my point about evil are related. they are not. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology. and my second point: that if you believe that when we die our lives will be judged by a deity of some type, this is in direct opposition to freedom. these two points are not really related, at least at the depth we have so far gone in our conversation.

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. the sticky wicket is you seem to think that my point about freedom, and my point about evil are related. they are not. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology. and my second point: that if you believe that when we die our lives will be judged by a deity of some type, this is in direct opposition to freedom. these two points are not really related, at least at the depth we have so far gone in our conversation.

Point 1: Unitarian Universalism specifically upholds free thought and reason as vital to the human experience. Universalism before that did. Because your argument involves "all" a single counterpoint renders it invalid. Besides I still don't see how that is evil. Is anything that does not promote the free and concious thought process evil? Is the method of teaching multiplication tables (which relies on memorization rather than learning the process) evil because it does not teach the logical process and as such simply supplied a mental cheat sheet? If your justification for the argument that religion is evil is that it supplies moral principles without the user concluding on those principles themselves I find it to be a poor argument. I think one would have to further show that those principles that it supplied were incorrect to continue that line of reasoning.

Point 2: I don't understand how judgement alone makes something evil. Are you saying the court systems are evil for judging people? Are you saying all opposition to freedom is evil?

As an interesting aside what is the source of morality then? Is it Mill's principle of autonomy, the harm thereom, utilitarianism, Locke's natural rights? Something else?

Point 1: Unitarian Universalism specifically upholds free thought and reason as vital to the human experience. Universalism before that did. Because your argument involves "all" a single counterpoint renders it invalid. Besides I still don't see how that is evil. Is anything that does not promote the free and concious thought process evil? Is the method of teaching multiplication tables (which relies on memorization rather than learning the process) evil because it does not teach the logical process and as such simply supplied a mental cheat sheet? If your justification for the argument that religion is evil is that it supplies moral principles without the user concluding on those principles themselves I find it to be a poor argument. I think one would have to further show that those principles that it supplied were incorrect to continue that line of reasoning.

Point 2: I don't understand how judgement alone makes something evil. Are you saying the court systems are evil for judging people? Are you saying all opposition to freedom is evil?

As an interesting aside what is the source of morality then? Is it Mill's principle of autonomy, the harm thereom, utilitarianism, Locke's natural rights? Something else?

point 1: already dealt with this. this is why since that post i have been using the term "religion*"

point 2: no one is saying judgement alone makes something evil. just that if we are by our nature subject to an authority then we cannot be free. a court is not an example of this either, because we consent to be governed, and are free to leave if we wish. if we are judged by god when we die, we do not consent to this, its is in our nature, thus the difference.

I think you are down to the argument that religion is evil because it stands to state morality rather than allowing individuals to come to conclusions on morality on their own through logic and reason. Is that true?

I think you are down to the argument that religion is evil because it stands to state morality rather than allowing individuals to come to conclusions on morality on their own through logic and reason. Is that true?

its because people, when given good and accurate information, tend to make pretty decent decisions.

and it turns out, we have a lot more accurate and just simply a lot more information then bronze age shepherds had.

its because people, when given good and accurate information, tend to make pretty decent decisions.

and it turns out, we have a lot more accurate and just simply a lot more information then bronze age shepherds had.

What information do we have today that we did not have a thousand years ago on the morality of killing another person that are readily available and used by individuals (ie psychological measurements of the dangers to psychological health of killing another human on the murderer do not count)?

What information do we have today that we did not have a thousand years ago on the morality of killing another person that are readily available and used by individuals (ie psychological measurements of the dangers to psychological health of killing another human on the murderer do not count)?

murder is a moral issue we wrestle with today? that one was settled a nice long time ago, and new information has not cropped up in that department for a nice long time. the closest i can come to an "issue" with murder would be Nuremberg trials or my lai, if following orders absolves from a moral imperative not to do something. if new information does crop up, i'd love to see it, and if it disagrees with something we think we "know" right now, i'll be the first to change my mind.

murder is a terrible example, its hard to think of an "issue" with murder. how about stem cell research? or even more basic, and to highlight another great moral issue (situationality): should you jump into a river to save someone drowning?

murder is a terrible example, its hard to think of an "issue" with murder. how about stem cell research? or even more basic, and to highlight another great moral issue (situationality): should you jump into a river to save someone drowning?

I did not know religion answered this question with its great moral authority. What moral authority that religion takes are you at issue with?

And it depends who that person is. As I have no moral bond requiring action for most people the answer is likely no. Nor am I told, by most religions, that I have such a moral requirement.

And I mean religion - not the institution of religion. I mean the religion

I did not know religion answered this question with its great moral authority.

And it depends who that person is. As I have no moral bond requiring action for most people the answer is likely no. Nor am I told, by most religions, that I have such a moral requirement.

that situation merely highlights the situational nature of morality. the devil is in the details often times. this is another grip i have with religious mandates, they are always in rock solid generalities, when often, what is moral is time or situationally dependent.

should you jump into the river? idk, depends on a lot of things. how far out are they? how well do you swim? how rough is the water? is there any other way to help them? how old are they? how capable of a swimmer are they?

but if there was a religious mandate on the topic it would be something like: always save people in rivers

for example: abortion

should you get an abortion? idk, depends on a lot of things. this is a fun one because even the religious are split, based on situation of conception, danger of the pregnancy, etc etc etc. and even though the religious disagree, they still claim that there opinion is gods!

this is just another gripe about religious based morality. i have plenty if you want more